Well, I think in part it’s because of false ideas on what wins. The media plays up charisma very heavy, and loves to follow around the more “charming” candidates and play up everything they talk about (much like they’re doing to Obama right now), and so there seems to be the opinion that some new Reagan can just show up out of nowhere and win the race - like what people are saying about Fred Thompson right now. That feeds two ideas: for charismatic candidates, that they don’t need to lay as much groundwork, because popular swell will simply carry them over; and for uncharismatic candidates, that they need to jump in earlier and work harder to build an organization and get support because they can’t count on the media caring about them.
And in fact, charisma doesn’t win anything; organization does. Every candidate who has won the nomination in the last thirty years was one that started very early and had the groundwork laid two years before the first primary. And so the charismatic candidates who jump in late but drum up massive media energy get beat to crap by dullards who spent the time to build support - Carter beats Udall and Ford beats Reagan in '76, Mondale beats Hart in '84, Dukakis beats Jackson and Gore in '88, Bush beats McCain in '00. (I leave out races where everyone was a dullard.)
What misleads us is 1980 and 1992, when the charismatic candidates (Reagan and Clinton) won out. And because they’re charming, we assume they won because they were charming. But again - they laid the best groundwork. Reagan had been building up support within the party since 1964, and when Ford trounced him in '76 he re-doubled his efforts to have a large and developed organization in '80. We think of Clinton as charismatic today, but in 1989 he was seen as the awful dullard who bombed introducing Dukakis at the '88 convention, and so he played like a dullard and started his campaign and his organization early. By the time it became obvious that he had charisma, he’d also set up the best groundwork.
Also - I don’t think that my analysis above means that Obama’s dead in the water. From what I’m reading, his inexperience may actually be helping him out, because he’s focusing on building an organization and raising money to counteract that. If he keeps doing that and doesn’t fall into the trap of believing that media support makes him invulnerable, he has a chance against the Clinton Machine. But I’m not optimistic about his chances; the groundwork Hillary’s putting together has been in the works since her husband started it in '89.
Also, I believe someone mentioned upthread (I’m going to flake out and not look for the actual quote) that due to Obama’s inexperience, anything he says publicly is only going to hurt him and not help. While I haven’t really followed political news beyond what gets discussed on this board, every quote I’ve seen from Obama portrays a thoughtful, intelligent person. The more soundbites he puts out that make him sound like someone who knows what he’s doing, the more favor he’ll gain.
Look at McCain, Clinton, and any number of politicians. There’s at least one new quote a day that’s held up for ridicule and makes them look like a jackass. I haven’t seen any such from Obama – I think there was one that he quickly (and convincingly) apologized for. Other than his name and color, which are only unfortunate in today’s climate, he seems positively unsmearable. Maybe he’ll pull a Howard Dean, but maybe not, and as long as he stays in the public’s consciousness and keeps scandals away from him, I can’t see how he doesn’t have a shot even with racism working against him.
LBJ won his first Senate election through ballot-box stuffing. But that kind of “vote” fraud is not the same as voter fraud, which hardly exists at all. Why risk being charged with a crime just so you can vote twice, or vote when you’re not legally entitled to?
JC, do you remember 1992? Clinton was anything but safe, that primary season. Gennifer Flowers, draft dodging, not inhaling, and a general death of a thousand cuts in the media. By June, when he’d locked up the nomination, he was running third in the polls, behind both Bush I and Perot.
Like Arthur Dent said, this must be some new meaning of the word ‘safe’ that I hadn’t previously encountered.
I’d be interested in some examples of how the Democratic Party has moved into ‘loony land.’
You give two here: (1) Howard Dean, an otherwise moderate Dem who was against the war from the get-go, which is a position that the American people have come around to, which puts him squarely in the mainstream of American politics; and (2) a post on a message board, whose representativeness of where the Democratic Party is coming fom you haven’t exactly demonstrated.
I still can’t get over what can tilt an election one way or another. Dean’s infamous “yeeew-haw” being a perfect example. I mean, really, what about the substance of everything he’d said up to that point…and afterwards.
Simply mindless.
And for my money, and I’d seriously contribute some of it, post-2000 Gore, is by far the best possible next US President. Kucinich would certainly get my vote out of the current crop, but (as someone else said upthread on a different matter) pragmatically speaking, the US is just not ready for the likes of someone like him.
This has only been said eight billion times before, but the Dean campaign had already gone off the rails by that point - as the unanimously-acclaimed frontrunner, he’d finished third in Iowa. [Why? As far as I know, it was because Kerry and Edwards had better operations on the ground in Iowa- which makes me think John Corrado has some very good points.] The “Byaaa!” thing just accelerated his decline.
All of which occurred before the New Hampshire primary, and all of which had a reaction by the American public of a general shrug. Even after all of this “death of a thousand cuts”, Clinton managed to finish within striking distance of favorite son Tsongas in New Hampshire, and immediately afterwards the press returned to its hagiography of Clinton, leading to him basically routing everyone else on Super Tuesday.
Right, and in June Gore was leading Bush by 10 to 20 %. And in June, Dukakis was leading Bush I 10 to 20 %. Polls two months before Labor Day, hell two months before the conventions, are useless. Besides, describing Clinton as having “locked up” the nomination in June is misleading - Clinton won nearly everything on Super Tuesday in early March, then Michigan and Illinois in March, and for him to lose the race after that point would mean a single opponent would need to take every following state. And in April, he won New York and Pennsylvania and essentially sealed it up. You might as well say the Colts “locked up” Super Bowl XLI in the last ten seconds with their final play.
Anyways, all of this is besides my point. Democrats have won three out of the last nine Presidential elections, and all three were with a Governor from a Southern state. Southern Governors are safe for the Democrats. That was the conventional wisdom in 1992, and it’s even more entrenched after his success.
What’s your point? That you don’t remember 1992? There are herbal remedies for that. Or other “herbal remedies” maybe you should stop taking.
Anyone who runs a halfway decent campaign. I honestly hope the Dems run Hillary just for the comedy value and the resulting late night monologues. Plus, I don’t think I’d mind a Republican being president as long as long as they’re not cast in the Bush mold.
I’ll admit to being such a dead ender. You don’t really seem to attempt to refute the idea. Novak is right, Iraq could be such a temporary dissatisfaction. However, the fact that it will be so close just shows you how much the Dems have to do in order to win. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the GOP machine somehow paints any Dem nominee as originally supporting the Iraqi invasion and Bush, even if it’s totally false. They’re experts at muddying the waters. The Dems, of course, attempt to emulate them but always seem to fail or even hurt themselves more by giving fodder to the other side.
The Dem’s 2006 victories, although a victory across the board, should be troubling to any Dem supporter, because AFAIK an uncomfortable amount of them were extremely close races. Saying the Dems won because of Iraq, or scandals, or whatever and then looking at the data and seeing the closeness casts a shadow over 2008, where such issues may not even play a part, or only as a side issue, since so much time will have passed by then.
And, of course, other events could happen. Who knows, maybe there will be another terrorist attack – instant Republican victory right there. I know, you’ll say that makes no sense, but you know it’s true deep down.
Who can do that while running a “halfway decent campaign”? The Republicans, with perhaps only Hagel the exception, *are * all “cast in the Bush mold.” They’ve done whatever he’s asked, without question. They’ve gotten us into this mess. They’re taking the blame from the Merkin Pipple. How can a Republican win without campaigning against his own party? Who is going to even try to do that?
Give us a name.
Look at what they all add up to, though. What Bush has done IS what the Republicans stand for.
“You are what you repeatedly do.” - Aristotle, quoted by Shaquille O’Neal
Oh, of course they’ll try. Really think it’ll work, though?
[qutoe]The Dems, of course, attempt to emulate them but always seem to fail or even hurt themselves more by giving fodder to the other side.
[/quote]
Yep, the last elections were just another example, weren’t they?
ROFL!!!
You really think the GOP will somehow gain an image of competency and integrity and responsibility by then? How? :rolleyes:
Nope. It’s become quite clear, and the polls indicate that the majority agrees, that the Republicans’ war in Iraq has fostered rather than fought terrorism worldwide. The existence of another terror attack would be blamed on them for creating the conditions that induced it, and on them for *failing to protect against it. * Your dead-enderhood is causing you to maintain an absolutely nonsensical view there.
The point, which both of you continue to ignore out of apparent sheer desperation, is that the smoke is pretty thick, enough for any responsible person to suspect a fire and go look for one. Your position is that one must have *absolute, incontrovertible proof * that it *is * a fire before one even goes to find out.
Someone less charitable than I would ask if you’d be as dismissive if the party names were reversed.
Oh, yeah - *please * reassure me that you’re not actually hoping for another terrorist attack on the United States just because you think it might help the party you favor at the next election. Please say your “dead-ender” partisanism doesn’t really extend quite that far.
According to Wikipedia, it caused Clinton to drop 20% in the polls. Maybe they’re mistaken?
I remember the race still being contested through New York that year. I believe that primary was in April.
And if the press was engaged in a hagiography of Clinton during the spring of 1992, you were in a different country than I was. I remember him being portrayed as a wounded duck, trailing the field going into convention season.
None of this means Clinton was in any way a safe choice. The fact is, those polls are still the best evidence we have of Clinton’s prospects at the time.
And I’d be interested in those polls showing Gore ahead of Bush by 10% in June 2000. If that happened, which I doubt, I bet it was one poll on one lucky day.
This has nothing to do with anything. My only use of June was that it was a point after the primaries were over. You’re reaching.
What’s been learned? That it’s important to have a strong, active grassroots base. Which is how Howard Dean became the chairman of the DNC. He was put him in charge of the party by the huge Netroots lobbying campaign ultimately winning a unanimous vote despite early odds of his having any significant chance to win. And since 2006 he’s helped make the grassroots / Netroots a force that is challenging the consultant/old school DLC structure that had been running the party. More and more Democrats who’d never participated in the party other than voting are volunteering their time and are being accommodated by ever improving local efforts to use them. The unwritten story is how the beating in 2004, despite a surge of activism, provided a new laser focus that helped sweep the 2006 elections. Many candidates won in 2006 as a result of much more door-knocking and better strategic efforts. The ‘roots are also demanding a new Democratic party that gets back to the basics and eroding the influence of the Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Evan Bayh types. Despite Clinton’s strong early showing she is not a favorite among them; many will even work against her candidacy. In fact some even question whether Obama has a foot solidly in that camp as well. Edwards, considered by some the leading contender of a newer model Democrat, is still running third and arguably stronger among the activist base than Clinton or even Obama. I wouldn’t count anyone out if the majority of Democratic activists decide on a single candidate. The new Internet fundraising model in the Democratic party is also a sign that influence is heading back towards the rank and file as is Dean’s very successful 50 state strategy.
The directionless, fragmented Republican party does not seem to have such an analog of an enthusiastic, re-tooled activist base at this time and I think it unlikely that they will until they’ve been sorely trounced a couple more times.
I think Dems have also started teaching the country a lesson. When you put an extremist movement into power to run the country, as the Neoconservatives have been since the start of the century, once it begins to fail it becomes inevitable that there will be huge swings back in the other direction towards the center. We’ve not see the promised booming economy among the average wage earner that was promised by tax cuts, we have Iraq, corruption, lessons like Katrina, etc. that are not placing warm fuzzies into the hearts and minds of the American public. They will be more and more willing to try another direction to see if that works better for them. The 2006 sweep has been a bellwether of this.
Slightly off topic, but Newt Gingrich was pointing out last week that the early presidential election cycle is really only aiding the consultants and lining their pockets. For once I think he actually made a well reasoned point. It’s really not too late for someone else to yet enter the race that hasn’t if they are a well known quantity. Gore will remain the dark horse for this reason up until just before the primaries. If drafted to run he would likely unite the party pretty quickly as most of the activist base wishes he would run. Many on the inside see a much different Gore than the one who ran in 2000 and I think they could convince a majority of the American public of this as well.
And thus the battle rages. Democrats think that Republicans are cynical. Republicans think that Democrats are naive. And the closer you are to either end of the ideological spectrum, the more apt you are to believe the absolutes righteously quoted about the “idiots” on the other side of the ideological teeter-totter.
This election will be like all the others in recent memory. One third of the voters will vote for the Democrat, no matter who the standard bearer is. One third will follow the (R) flag into battle without hesitation.
And one third will actually consider the candidates and the issues. The candidate that most appeals to the moderates will win.
